Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of vacancies that exist on the boards of the agencies and other bodies under the aegis of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46019/10]
Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed)
State Boards
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of vacancies that exist on the boards of agencies or other bodies operating under the aegis of his Department; the appointments made to such boards by him since 22 November 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48345/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the appointments he has made to State boards since November 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48355/10]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the appointments made by him since June 2002 to the State Boards, or other agencies within his aegis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48382/10]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the names, occupations and dates of appointment of those appointed to the boards of the State agencies and bodies under the aegis of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48387/10]
Michael Ring
Ceist:147 Deputy Michael Ring asked the Taoiseach the Government appointments made to State boards, State bodies, public bodies, State agencies, State enterprises, Judicial positions and all State positions from the 1 June 2010 to date in 2011 in tabular form. [48321/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, and 147 together.
The information requested by the Deputies in regard to appointments I have made since I became Taoiseach in May 2008 is in the table. In respect of vacancies, last month I signed the National Economic and Social Council (Alteration of Composition) Order 2010 facilitating changes to the structure of the NESC to reflect the inclusion of the environmental pillar into social partnership and to allow for an increase in the number of independent members to provide greater external input to the work of the council. Following finalisation of these changes, I am now in a position to appoint a new council and I expect to do so shortly. The majority of the membership is appointed on the basis of nominations received from social partner organisations.
In addition, the National Statistics Board has one vacancy due to the departure of an Assistant Secretary from my Department. Other than in these areas, there are no vacancies on the boards of agencies or other public service bodies for which I have Ministerial responsibility.
|
Body / Board |
Name |
Occupation |
Date of Appointment |
|
National Economic and Social Council (NESC) |
Siobhan Masterson |
Senior Policy Executive, Irish Business and Employers Confederation |
March 2009 |
|
National Economic and Social Council (NESC) |
Tom Parlon |
Director General, Construction Industry Federation |
March 2009 |
|
National Economic and Social Council (NESC) |
Edmond Connolly |
Chief Executive Officer, Macra na Feirme |
March 2009 |
|
National Economic and Social Council (NESC) |
Oisin Coghlan |
Director, Friends of the Earth |
May 2009 |
|
National Economic and Social Council (NESC) |
Pat Smith |
General Secretary, Irish Farmers Association |
June 2009 |
|
National Economic and Social Council (NESC) |
Tony Donohoe |
Head of Social and Education Policy, Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC) |
January 2010 |
|
National Economic and Social Council (NESC) |
Kevin Cardiff |
Secretary General, Department of Finance |
February 2010 |
|
Ireland Newfoundland Partnership |
Billy Kelleher |
Minister for Trade and Commerce |
June 2009 |
|
Innovation Fund — Ireland Advisory Board |
Mr. Damien Callaghan, (Chair) |
Intel Capital |
July 2010 |
|
Innovation Fund — Ireland Advisory Board |
Mr. Bernard Byrne, |
Chief Financial Officer, AIB |
July 2010 |
|
Innovation Fund — Ireland Advisory Board |
Mr. Martin Kelly |
Partner, IBM VC Group |
July 2010 |
|
Innovation Fund — Ireland Advisory Board |
Mr. Ray Nolan |
Software Entrepreneur |
July 2010 |
|
Innovation Fund — Ireland Advisory Board |
Ms. Bernie Cullinan |
CEO Clarigen |
July 2010 |
|
Innovation Fund — Ireland Advisory Board |
Ms. Helen Ryan |
CEO Creganna-Tactx Medical |
July 2010 |
|
Innovation Fund — Ireland Advisory Board |
Dr. Hugh Brady |
President, UCD |
July 2010 |
|
Innovation Fund — Ireland Advisory Board |
Prof. Peter Clinch |
Special Economic Adviser to the Taoiseach |
July 2010 |
|
Innovation Fund — Ireland Advisory Board |
Mr. John Corrigan |
Chief Executive, NTMA |
July 2010 |
|
Innovation Fund — Ireland Advisory Board |
Prof. Frank Gannon |
Director General, SFI |
July 2010 |
|
Innovation Fund — Ireland Advisory Board |
Mr. Barry O’Leary |
CEO, IDA Ireland |
July 2010 |
|
Innovation Fund — Ireland Advisory Board |
Mr. Frank Ryan |
CEO, Enterprise Ireland |
July 2010 |
|
National Statistics Board |
Dr. Patricia O’Hara |
NIRSA |
March 2009 and re-appointed in October, 2010 |
|
National Statistics Board |
Prof. Philip Lane |
TCD |
March 2009 and re-appointed in October, 2010 |
|
National Statistics Board |
Mr. Fergal O’Brien |
IBEC |
October 2009 and re-appointed in October, 2010 |
|
National Statistics Board |
Mr. Paul Sweeney |
ICTU |
October, 2010 |
|
National Statistics Board |
Mr. Ciaran Dolan |
ICMSA |
October, 2010 |
|
National Statistics Board |
Mr. Michael J. McGrath |
Civil Servant, Department of Finance |
October, 2010 |
|
National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP) |
Mr. Brendan Duffy |
Assistant Secretary, Dept. of Finance |
10 July 2008 |
|
National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP) |
Mr. Dermot Curran |
Assistant Secretary,Dept. of Enterprise, Trade & Employment |
10 July 2008 |
|
National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP) |
Ms. Mary Connaughton |
HR Development,IBEC |
10 July 2008 |
Note:
(1) In addition to the appointments listed above, the Government re-appointed Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness as President of the Law Reform Commission for one year from 22 February, 2010.
(2) The NCPP was absorbed into the National Economic and Social Council (NESC) with effect from 1st April 2010.
Since the Green Party announced its decision to leave Government at the end of November, at least 35 appointments have been made by Ministers and the vast majority have been made by the leader of the Green Party, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley.
None of them were Green Party members.
The Minister was always vehemently opposed what he used to term "party hacks". It seems this tradition, if that is the proper word, is alive and well.
Do I have to repeat it again? None of them were Green Party members.
When to decide to go to the country, or to Áras an Uachtaráin, is the Taoiseach's sole prerogative. There will be much comment about appointments to vacancies. The Taoiseach should suspend any appointments, unless they are essential to the country's interests, and wait until whatever Government the people decide to elect at the general election and let it get on with the business.
I have to admit that Governments in which my party was involved made appointments in the hiatus between the general election held being held and a new Government being appointed. However, given where we are and the level of cynicism about politics, unless an appointment is essential, I suggest the Taoiseach issue a directive to Ministers not to make any further appointments until the people make their decision. Will the Taoiseach comment on that?
It is important to point out that some people might be in an election mode but an election has not been called. As the Deputy said, previous Governments of all hues have filled vacancies when in office. There is no legal compromise appointing people if the vacancies exist. I faced a situation when I came into office in 1997 when there was the purported appointment of 24 people to health boards before the vacancies even occurred. The vacancies arose in my term but my predecessor sought to appoint 24 people to vacancies on health boards which arose after the change of Government. That had to be rectified.
As vacancies arise, where there are competent people available to do the job and if they are needed for the purpose of proper governance of these agencies, they should and can be considered. I take the point that we need to be mindful to ensure that when elections are called, a prudent approach is taken to these issues.
The renewed programme for Government makes a commitment to legislate for new transparent means to make appointments. We have discussed this here before. In the case of important appointments, such as the chairmanships of essential State bodies and agencies, there should be some parliamentary input from an all-party committee or whatever and those being considered for serious appointments should be able to say to the committee what they have to offer from their expertise or experience.
The list of legislation published by the Chief Whip does not include this. He made the point that the list of Bills are ones likely to be considered in the remaining lifetime of this Dáil. I cannot force the Government not to make appointments but I ask the Taoiseach to be cognisant of the fact that a raft of these appointments will be coming up. I agree that in many cases it is difficult to get good people to serve in many of these positions given all that goes on in politics. Where serious appointments must be made, and in light of the commitment in the renewed programme for Government to legislate for this, could some contact be made with Members of the Oireachtas to get their views on the qualifications, suitability or advantages of making a particular appointment?
We must look at these matters in the future to see how best to achieve this. We need to ensure there are people who want to serve and that they get the opportunity to put forward their case to serve. That would be good. On the question of suitability, Ministers must get people who they believe would be up for the job. In many cases, they are not based on political allegiances or whatever, as is often portrayed. It is about getting the right people for the job.
On many occasions, as incoming Minister, I have reappointed people appointed by a previous Administration because they were good and I was well advised that they had made a good and strong contribution to the development of the agency or organisation.
We need to keep an open mind. It has to be about how we build public confidence for those who are being asked to serve. As we know, very strenuous duties of care come with membership of boards. We need to be clear and careful that when issues of accountability need to be addressed we do so in such a way that does not mean people, who otherwise would be able to do well and fix the problem, cannot continue to contribute. Accountability here is sometimes portrayed as, when a mistake is made it means that is it and no one is fit to serve on anything. It is about how one deals with mistakes and errors that counts as far as I am concerned — that is the litmus test of being accountable rather than a culture of perfection, which usually ends up with no one doing anything and having a very process-driven operation without getting very much out of people.
In his reply to Deputy Kenny, the Taoiseach mentioned that a general election has not yet been called and that therefore the interregnum period between the calling of a general election and the election of whatever government arises from the general election does not arise yet. However, in reality it does because at the moment we have an unusually long interregnum period. The general election, in effect, has been called. The announcement by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, that the Green Party would withdraw from government and that we would have an election called before the end of January effectively means the life of this Government is now on notice. It is clear that members of the Government clearly believe that and we have seen a number of Ministers and Ministers of State indicate they will not stand for re-election.
In that interregnum period we need to address two issues. The first is the administrative decisions that may be made by different organs of Government — Departments and State agencies — based on the understanding of those Departments and agencies of the policies of the current Government. Clearly care will need to be taken that they do not anticipate or prejudice any policy changes that might be made by a new Government. The second is the question of appointments. We are not talking about the normal five to six weeks between the calling of a general election and the reconvening of the Dáil. In the past there have been attempts at sharp practice whereby governments of different hues have attempted to make appointments in that period. We now have a much longer period of time and therefore a greater number of appointments that will be due to be filled. I accept that some of those appointments are effectively nominations made by various bodies to boards of State agencies, with which there is no issue. Some of them are discretionary appointments made by Ministers and some of those appointees may well find favour right across the House.
Given the likely length of the interregnum period, would the Taoiseach agree to a mechanism that seeks to reach agreement in the House on an all-party basis about the appointments that arise between now and the reconvening of the Dáil after a general election?
The question of the interregnum period that would apply would need to be considered. However, we can have a look at that. I am prepared to co-operate on these sorts of matters at the appropriate time. I do not buy into the Deputy's argument that it is from here on out. Until a general election is called the Government has its duties and functions to perform. One cannot decide that is not the case. It is in the context of a post-general election situation, recognising the outcomes, that one tries to ensure any functions performed by the Government are consistent with a transitional period, whatever that is. We need to be sensible about this. The Government cannot abdicate its responsibilities and at the same time some sensible discussions could possibly take place.
I take some comfort from what the Taoiseach has just said, although I am concerned that he is defining the interregnum period as just the period between the calling of the general election and the reconvening of the Dáil. In reality everybody knows the general election is going to take place — when it will take place is another day's work. The phrase being used today is "before the end of spring", which could be the end of April. Last week we were led to believe it would take place by the end of March. In December it was supposed to be the end of January. The general election date is a moving target. The reality is that we are in that interregnum period.
I know there is always argument about what political appointments are being made, who is being appointed and so on. However, there is also the very real issue where appointments are being made — I am thinking in particular of chairs of State bodies and so on who have a significant role to play in the running of the State apparatus. In many cases appointments made now could last for five years — in effect, the entire lifetime of a government. Unless we have an all-party agreement on appointments to be made between now and the reconvening of the Dáil, a new government might find itself having to ask new appointees to voluntarily resign so that the new government would be in a position to make appointments. It is undesirable that people who are now being asked to serve on boards would be put in that position by the present Government. There is a way to avoid that by agreeing a cross-party mechanism for clearing or agreeing. There would not be any great difficulty with nominations from designated bodies to various boards and so on. In many cases where Ministers are exercising discretion there may be no argument and the appointee may be perfectly appropriate and agreed. However, in cases where there is disagreement, it would be better to have that addressed on a cross-party basis rather than having appointments made that may need to be undone after the general election.
No self-respecting government will cede its legitimate authority unless and until we are into a general election period. In terms of coming to an accommodation on these matters there is a need to be sensible. I know the Deputy might be able to say we are just lagging along here; a lot of important work has to be done. There are four Finance Bill-related pieces of legislation and other legislation which is at an advanced stage.
Any excuse.
No. They will be done in parallel with the processing of the Finance Bill, which is the most important legislation. If we do not have that, how do we confirm certainty for the upcoming financial year? It is in everybody's interest. Behind all the rhetoric, there is an understanding from everybody that must happen. We would be very foolish if we did not do that. In the question the Deputy raises, he is going a bit far in suggesting the Government should at this stage decide it is not in a position to make decisions.
I agree that we should be able to come to some mechanism that would enable us to get a greater degree of agreement when that period arrives.
In October 2009, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, indicated that mechanisms would have to be found and put in place to ensure that the "right people" would be appointed to State boards. We did not have long to wait to get an idea of what he was actually talking about when he referred to "right people" because shortly afterwards we saw the appointment of several failed local government candidates of the Green Party,——
And members of the Labour Party.
——along with a raft of others favoured by the Taoiseach's party at that time.
We have seen another set of appointments here in the dying weeks of this Government and yet there is no indication at all that the Minister's suggestion about introducing mechanisms is in any way in the offing.
It is in the programme for Government.
In fact, in the revised programme for Government the Taoiseach's party and the Green Party have clearly committed, under the heading "Enhancing Our Democracy and Public Services", to introduce on a legislative basis a more open and transparent system of appointment to State boards. The revised programme clearly states that the legislation "will outline a procedure for the publication of all vacancies likely to occur, invite applications from the general public and from the responses, create a panel of suitable persons for consideration of appointment", and it also goes on to commit to identifying the process for Oireachtas committees to also have a direct role in nominations to that panel.
The line of questioning is going outside the intended question when it was originally submitted.
No. The publication today——
This is about appointments to boards under the Taoiseach's aegis, not the aegis of other Departments.
This is what I am addressing. Make no mistake, in the publication today by the Chief Whip of the so-called legislative work programme, or what is to cover for it over the remaining weeks of this Dáil, this commitment to ensure that there is a more transparent, more appropriate and legislatively underpinned process for appointment to State boards does not appear. It has gone clearly off the agenda of this Government. Would the Taoiseach agree, having had that as a commitment in the programme for Government and in the closing weeks when he is not even going to address it at all, that truly, as was already put to him here this afternoon, he should suspend making any more appointments because the process is flawed and open to further discrediting of the political process itself in its wider understanding among the broader electorate? The appropriate course of action at this point in time is to put a hold on any further appointments until the commitment he had in the programme for Government, which I supported, welcome and want to see implemented, is introduced by a new Government.
The programme for Government and revised programme for Government were based on a number of issues, including the prospect of the Government completing a full term, which now, obviously, will not happen, and the prospects of completing the programme in a much shorter timeframe, as ambitious as it was, is not available to us. Therefore, we have outlined the legislative priorities for the remainder of the term that is before us. That is a realistic and proper way to proceed. There are many reforming pieces of legislation that can be considered by the Oireachtas in the future. Unfortunately, there are some which will not be completed in this term.
Just to——
We will move on. We have spent an inordinate amount of time on this. We are turning Question Time into a debate.
I have a short opportunity and I am entitled to a brief supplementary. Am I entitled to the same as every other Deputy?
Yes. Will you be brief, please?
I assure the Ceann Comhairle the brevity issue is not a problem on my part, at least today.
In the focus of the particular questions on appointments by him, would the Taoiseach respond on any vacancies that may present or are current in terms of State boards or agencies under his Department's aegis? Would he agree that the appropriate course of action is to leave them on hold until such time as the opportunity arises to introduce on a legislative basis, as he proposed to do in the revised programme for Government, a new, transparent and openly public supportable process for such appointments in the future?
I do not agree with that as a matter of principle to be applied. Boards cannot function unless they are properly constituted. One needs a proper skills mix. One needs to ensure that people attend in sufficient numbers and quorums are met, and business is conducted. In many cases there are economic and other consequences, and, indeed, many social benefits, that derive as a result of the effective functioning of boards in implementing Government policy working with efficient and effective executives.
As a matter of principle, apart from the practicality of the matter, it is not a good idea. As I say, we should work in a sensible and pragmatic fashion, and in a way in which the Government is entitled and has a duty. Not only is the Government entitled, but it has a duty to fill vacancies when they arise to ensure that statutory requirements are being adhered to and complied with.
Freedom of Information
Enda Kenny
Ceist:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by him in November 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46020/10]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:7 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of applications made to his Department under the Freedom of Information Act during 2010; the way this compares with each year since 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48346/10]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:8 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests processed by his Department during 2010; the number which have been acceded to; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48365/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:9 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department in the year 2010, the number acceded to and the number refused; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1132/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, together.
A total of 110 requests were received during 2010, of which 14 were received in November. Of the total of 110, some 74 were granted or part-granted and four were refused. In 11 cases no records were held, while four requests were withdrawn and 17 requests are ongoing.
The comparative figures for each year since 2002 are as follows:
|
Year |
Total |
|
2002 |
162 |
|
2003 |
142 |
|
2004 |
45 |
|
2005 |
60 |
|
2006 |
55 |
|
2007 |
71 |
|
2008 |
83 |
|
2009 |
99 |
|
2010 |
110 |
All FOI requests received in my Department are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the Freedom of Information Acts. I have no role in processing requests.
On the last occasion we asked such questions, I asked the Taoiseach about a number of agencies that are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Has any consideration been given to extending it? As it is, it is quite extensive but there are always persons stating they cannot get information about this, that or the other. Is any consideration being given to an extension of the list for freedom of information requests?
The question of the operation of the Freedom of Information Act is a matter for the Department of Finance. The question as to whether there are any policy issues arising or to be implemented would be best directed to the Minister for Finance. I do not have that information.
The latest raft of information here is on the usual questions.
I suppose one of the iconic pictures of this Government was the occasion on which it held the meeting in Farmleigh where Minister after Minister rolled up there. Was there a reason that had to happen? Why was the meeting was not held in Government Buildings, which would be the normal venue for such meetings?
It was the day of the marathon.
The Information Commissioner called some time ago for a thorough review of the freedom of information legislation. Does the Government accept that recommendation and has any review been carried out of the freedom of information legislation?
I do not know. As I stated, responsibility for the operation of the legislation is with the line Minister, who is the Minister for Finance. I only have the detailed data on the question on my Department.
Does the Taoiseach share Deputies' concerns at the fact that the Information Commissioner has indicated that it is causing her considerable alarm that particular functions of bodies that have been under the Freedom of Information Acts' cover are being removed from these bodies without any reference to that office — no indication, no prior notice, no consultation?
Deputy Ó Caoláin should submit a parliamentary question to the Minister for Finance who has direct responsibility for the legislation.
I appreciate that, but I am asking the Taoiseach, as the leader of Government, because this is a hugely important issue. It is not merely a line Minister issue. This is the Information Commissioner outlining repeatedly concerns about a number of functions and responsibilities that have been moved outside of the freedom of information cover. There was at no time advice, engagement or consultation up to the announcement itself. Where does the Taoiseach believe his office and position as head of the Cabinet can intervene to ensure this anomaly is addressed so that the Information Commissioner's role can be respected and fully engaged with?
As a member of the Government one assesses memorandums coming from various Ministers with line responsibilities in these areas. There is a considered analysis of the approach into what is required or the pluses and minuses of a particular proposal. It would only be in such a context that I could give an opinion. As Taoiseach I can only give the considered opinion of the Government if it considered the matter. Speaking as Taoiseach and speculating on something where there was no prior notice and where there is no supplementary material would not be very sensible.
I ask if the Taoiseach will take an active interest in the areas we are speaking about. These are bodies such as the Health and Safety Authority, the Road Safety Authority and the Land Registry, to name but three. Critical areas of responsibility have been highlighted under each of these authorities' functions——
The Deputy is broadening the basis of the question.
——and taken out of the ambit of freedom of information.
We should move on.
I am asking the Taoiseach that if he is not happy with that — as many are not — will he undertake as Taoiseach to address the matter with the appropriate Minister and Cabinet colleagues? This covers a number of such colleagues——
The Deputy should pursue the matter with the Minister for Finance by way of a parliamentary question.
——and their responsibilities. Will he undertake to have the matter further addressed? We are particularly asking for engagement with the Office of the Information Commissioner, which is surely not a significant request.
The Information Commissioner has the right and entitlement to make her views known and it is a matter for the Minister for Finance, in his capacity, to decide how to proceed. There is a relationship between the Information Commissioner and the Department of Finance for the purpose of considering these policy initiatives. I can bring the matter to the attention of the Minister but I must leave it within his preserve to decide what, if anything, can be done about it.
I thank the Taoiseach.
Departmental Staff
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:10 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the reason recruitment to the position of advisory counsel in the Office of the Attorney General is restricted to barristers and the reason, in particular solicitors, are excluded, having regard to the fact that solicitors are now eligible for appointment as Judges of the High Court and Supreme Court; if he plans to review this practice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46960/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:11 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the criteria for recruitment to the position of advisory counsel in the office of the Attorney General. [1133/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 11 together.
Recruitment competitions for positions as advisory counsel are run by the Public Appointments Service. For the most recent competition, in June 2008, the essential requirements for candidates were to have been called to the Bar of Ireland; since qualification, to have significant experience as a barrister practising in the State; to have an ability to analyse and advise, orally and in writing, on complex legal issues; to have a good knowledge of constitutional, European and administrative law; to have advocacy and litigation skills, sound judgment and the ability to work under pressure; and to possess the requisite knowledge and capability, including the ability to communicate effectively, to discharge the duties of the position.
I am advised by the Attorney General that the approach to recruitment which has consistently been taken by successive Attorneys General reflects the need of the Attorney General's office to have available to it the broad range of skills and expertise required to enable the Attorney General to discharge his constitutional functions as adviser of the Government in matters of law and legal opinion. This recruitment approach ensures that the office avails of the particular skills and expertise offered by the two branches of the legal profession, namely solicitors and barristers. The allocation of functions within the office reflects the reality that the legal profession is divided, that the two branches of the profession perform generally different functions and that both branches of the profession offer different sets of skills and expertise reflecting different systems of education and training, both of which are required by the office.
This distinction is also mirrored in restricting to solicitors recruitment to all legal positions in the Chief State Solicitor's office. Some 113 positions in the Chief State Solicitor's office are restricted to solicitors while only 35 positions as advisory counsel in the Attorney General's office, and the 14 advisory counsel seconded from that office to Departments are confined to barristers. Positions as Parliamentary Counsel — legal drafters — in the Attorney General's office are open to and held by barristers and solicitors.
Under Article 30 of the Constitution the Attorney General is required to advise the Government in matters of law and legal opinion. The current Attorney General and his predecessors believe that the constitutional obligation is best discharged by ensuring that the position of advisory counsel is occupied by lawyers who have been trained in and have significant practice and experience of conducting trials in the courts. A core function of advisory counsel involves the handling of, and providing advice relating to, litigation against the State. In particular, barristers, by virtue of their professional training and experience as barristers, have specialist knowledge and skills in presenting legal arguments to the courts and assessing and advising on evidential issues relating to court proceedings, and they have empirical knowledge of the multiplicity of factors that affect the outcome of litigation.
Whereas advisory counsel also provide specialist advice on matters which may not involve, or have the potential to involve, litigation, it is a core function of every advisory counsel to advise on litigation and litigation-related issues. In addition, barristers in practice give specialised legal opinions and advice and such advisory work is also a core function of advisory counsel in the Attorney General's office. Such opinions and advice are at the request of a briefing solicitor and are sought because the solicitor recognises the special expertise of the barrister in such matters. The fact that solicitors may be appointed judges does not mean that the role of advisory counsel should be open to solicitors.
The EU-IMF memorandum of agreement indicates that the Government agreed to introduce legislative changes to remove restrictions to trade and competition in the sheltered sections, including the legal profession, establishing an independent regulator for the profession and implementing the recommendations of the legal costs working group and outstanding Competition Authority recommendations. Prior to the negotiations with the EU and IMF, had the Government already decided to introduce such legislative changes? Will the Taoiseach give us a brief summary of that?
The Deputy is expanding the scope of the question.
This relates to the topic and area of legal changes.
It is a confined question.
Will the Taoiseach indicate the envisaged changes in the legal profession?
I will have to check that. What is involved is further consideration of reforms that would help in reducing professional costs in order to make the sector more efficient and effective. I will have to get back to the Deputy on the timing of those issues.
What about the Competition Authority's recommendations from several years ago? Nothing has been done about them.
The director general and the deputy director general in the Office of the Attorney General are both advisory counsel. How many advisory counsel are working within the Office of the Attorney General under each of the three different grades, with grade 1 as assistant secretary, grade 2 as principal officer and grade 3 as assistant principal officer? I may have the order in reverse. Has the Taoiseach, in his response, details of the number of people working as advisory counsel to the Attorney General in the course of carrying out of the function of legal adviser to the Cabinet?
In the main body of the reply I referred to the fact that there are 35 positions as advisory counsel in the Attorney General's office. I cannot provide specific grades if they apply but I will check that for the Deputy.
Will the Taoiseach furnish that detail with regard to each of the three grades applying within the office?
I will ask to see if the information is available and get it for the Deputy.
Did the Taoiseach have his tongue in his cheek in replying to the question? As a former solicitor, like me, did he not consider that the extent of appointments of barristers in the Attorney General's office over solicitors might have had something to do with the fact that the Attorney General of the State, to date, has always been a barrister? The approach would tend to——
The Deputy is straying from the matter.
From the perspective of recruitment, there would possibly be a tendency to focus on appointments from the barrister side of the profession as opposed to the solicitor side. Has any current assessment been done on a possible fusion of the two professions so that we could consider the possibility——
That is not contemplated by this question.
There could be a united profession in this country as there is in many other countries.
Both sides of the legal profession come with skill sets. As I stated, there are 113 solicitors in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and 35 advisory counsel in the Office of the Attorney General who are barristers. For the purposes of legal drafting, traditional training would be more in line with the barrister profession than with the solicitor profession, although that is not exclusively the case. There is a case to be made for considering some reforms in this area and making some appointments — in both directions — to assist cross-pollination.
On the question of changes that need to be made and which are referred to in the EU-IMF plan, the plan indicates legislative changes that the Government will introduce to remove restrictions to trade and competition. Details regarding the legal profession would be by way of publication of proposals that in due course would be approved by Government in this area. The legal costs Bill will provide for better regulation of costs. It is also intended to establish a regulator to replace the Office of the Taxing Master. Consideration is being given in the legal costs Bill to the question generally of more independent regulation of the legal professions.
Written answers follow Adjournment debate.